marketing-automation-mcp 是一个 Python MCP 服务器，用于确定性活动报告、提供商支持的预算优化、文案生成以及仅供演示的受众细分。
本仓库现在更倾向于可重复性，而非临时设置：
支持的 Python 版本：3.12 和 3.13
本地引导：uv
主要 MCP 传输方式：stdio
本地 Python 3.14.x 被视为兼容性工作，而非支持的基准
本仓库中的公共 MCP 契约有意保持狭窄：
generate_campaign_report
optimize_campaign_budget
create_campaign_copy
analyze_audience_segments
目前只有这四个工具属于受支持的服务器接口。src/tools/ 下的其他模块作为内部或预期的代码路径存在，不应被视为生产环境的 MCP 功能。
Related MCP server: Google Ads MCP Server
DEMO_MODE=true
为演示和契约测试返回确定性的样本数据。
DEMO_MODE=false
使用真实的平台凭据和选定的 AI 提供商。
缺失的实时依赖项将返回结构化的 blocked 响应，而不是虚构的输出。
uv sync --python 3.13 --extra dev
cp .env.example .env
uv run python -m compileall src tests dashboard
uv run pytest如果您需要 pip 回退方案：
python3.13 -m venv .venv
source .venv/bin/activate
python -m pip install --upgrade pip
python -m pip install -e ".[dev]"以其支持的传输模式启动 MCP 服务器：
uv run python -m src.server服务器目前仅记录并支持 stdio 传输。
Claude Desktop 配置：
{
"mcpServers": {
"marketing-automation": {
"command": "uv",
"args": ["run", "python", "-m", "src.server"],
"cwd": "/absolute/path/to/Marketing-Automation-MCP-Server"
}
}
}cp .env.example .env最低有用配置：
仅演示模式：
DEMO_MODE=true
实时报告和优化：
DEMO_MODE=false
一组或多组平台凭据
实时文案生成：
DEMO_MODE=false
AI_PROVIDER=openai
OPENAI_API_KEY=...
AI_OPENAI_MODEL=gpt-5.4
可选的提供商环境变量：
ANTHROPIC_API_KEY, ANTHROPIC_MODEL
GEMINI_API_KEY, GEMINI_MODEL
为了获得稳定的实时行为，请设置：
SECRET_KEY
ENCRYPTION_KEY
如果缺少 ENCRYPTION_KEY，该进程的 API 密钥加密将被禁用，服务器会记录一条警告。
每个工具响应都包含以下顶级字段：
{
"status": "ok | blocked",
"mode": "demo | live",
"blocked_reason": "optional string",
"warnings": []
}请参阅 docs/api/README.md 中的完整契约。
实时报告和优化流程可能会将内部审计记录持久化到配置的数据库中：
报告流程可以持久化标准化的活动快照
优化流程可以持久化 AI 决策历史
这些写入是用于可观测性和重放安全性的内部副作用。它们不属于公共 MCP 响应契约的一部分。
uv run python -m compileall src tests dashboard
uv run pytest
uv run python -c "import src.server, src.cli, src.ai_engine, src.performance; print('imports ok')"
docker build -t marketing-automation-mcp:latest .Analyze audience segments in deterministic demo mode or return a structured live-mode block.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contact_list_id | Yes | ||
| criteria | Yes | ||
| min_segment_size | No | ||
| max_segments | No | ||
| include_recommendations | No | ||
| analyze_overlap | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | No | |
| mode | No | |
| blocked_reason | No | |
| warnings | No | |
| analysis_id | Yes | |
| total_contacts | Yes | |
| segments | Yes | |
| uncategorized_count | Yes | |
| overlaps | No | |
| recommendations | Yes | |
| insights | Yes | |
| created_at | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read/write nature, side effects, or mode implications. 'Deterministic demo mode' hints at reproducibility but is not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits critical details that would justify its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 6 parameters, no annotations, and no explanation of the output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. The live-mode vs. demo distinction is mentioned but not fleshed out.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for its 6 parameters, and the description does not mention or clarify any parameters. It adds no value beyond the schema's field names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool analyzes audience segments and mentions two modes (deterministic demo vs. live), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_campaign_copy or generate_campaign_report. However, it lacks specificity on what the analysis produces.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; no prerequisites or context for the modes. The description only states the action without any conditional advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Generate campaign copy variants through the configured AI provider or deterministic demo mode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_name | Yes | ||
| product_description | Yes | ||
| target_audience | Yes | ||
| tone | Yes | ||
| copy_type | Yes | ||
| variants_count | No | ||
| keywords | No | ||
| max_length | No | ||
| call_to_action | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | No | |
| mode | No | |
| blocked_reason | No | |
| warnings | No | |
| copy_generation_id | Yes | |
| copy_type | Yes | |
| variants | Yes | |
| tone | Yes | |
| target_audience | Yes | |
| keywords_used | Yes | |
| best_variant_id | Yes | |
| generation_metadata | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions two modes (AI provider and deterministic demo) but fails to disclose potential side effects, failure modes, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any constraints. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and key behavioral distinction (two modes). There is no fluff; every word earns its place. The structure effectively front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, 5 required) and the lack of schema descriptions and annotations, the description should provide more contextual guidance. Although an output schema exists (so return values need no explanation), the lack of parameter semantics and behavioral detail makes the description incomplete for an agent to use the tool confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter documentation exists in the schema. The tool description does not provide any additional meaning for the 9 parameters (e.g., expected formats, examples, or relationships). The only hint comes from parameter titles, which is insufficient for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('generate'), the resource ('campaign copy variants'), and the two operational modes (AI provider or deterministic demo mode). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like analyze_audience_segments, generate_campaign_report, and optimize_campaign_budget, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for generating copy, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent decide between this tool and others. The context suggests usage, but explicit guidelines are missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Generate campaign performance reports using live platform data or deterministic demo mode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign_ids | Yes | ||
| date_range | Yes | ||
| metrics | Yes | ||
| format | No | json | |
| include_charts | No | ||
| group_by | No | campaign |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | No | |
| mode | No | |
| blocked_reason | No | |
| warnings | No | |
| report_id | Yes | |
| generated_at | Yes | |
| date_range | Yes | |
| campaigns | Yes | |
| summary | Yes | |
| charts | No | |
| format | Yes | |
| download_url | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool can use live data or a deterministic demo mode, which is a behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose other important aspects like permissions, side effects, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action. It is concise, though it could briefly describe parameters without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, enums), the description is too sparse. It does not explain demo mode, report formats, or group_by behavior. Output schema exists but does not justify the lack of parameter context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and the tool description provides no explanations for any of the 6 parameters, including required ones like campaign_ids, date_range, and metrics. This forces the agent to infer meaning from schemas alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates campaign performance reports and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying data sources (live vs demo mode). The verb 'generate' and resource 'campaign performance reports' are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like analyze_audience_segments. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Reallocate campaign budget using live platform metrics and provider-backed optimization logic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign_ids | Yes | ||
| total_budget | Yes | ||
| optimization_goal | No | maximize_roi | |
| constraints | No | ||
| historical_days | No | ||
| include_projections | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | No | |
| mode | No | |
| blocked_reason | No | |
| warnings | No | |
| optimization_id | Yes | |
| total_budget | Yes | |
| optimization_goal | Yes | |
| allocations | Yes | |
| projected_improvement | Yes | |
| confidence_score | Yes | |
| recommendations | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the high-level purpose but omits details like budget modification being destructive, required permissions, or impact of reallocation. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single 10-word sentence, concise but too brief for a tool with 6 parameters. It front-loads the action but lacks essential context, making it minimally adequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema not explained, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot infer inputs, outputs, or behavioral effects from this alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not mention any parameters (campaign_ids, total_budget, etc.) nor explain their meaning. Only the optimization_goal enum is partially documented in the schema itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (reallocate campaign budget) and the method (live platform metrics, optimization logic). It distinguishes from siblings like analyze_audience_segments or create_campaign_copy, which are unrelated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to manually adjust budgets). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0analyze_audience_segmentscreate_campaign_copygenerate_campaign_reportoptimize_campaign_budgetScored across 4 tools
Each tool targets a distinct marketing function: audience analysis, copy creation, reporting, and budget optimization. There is no overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (analyze_*, create_*, generate_*, optimize_*), making them predictable and easy to distinguish.
With 4 tools, the set is slightly lean but covers core marketing automation tasks. It does not feel overly sparse or bloated for a focused server.
The tools cover analysis, copy, reporting, and optimization, but lack common features like campaign lifecycle management (create, schedule, pause) or list/segment management, leaving notable gaps.
AI marketing agent for Google Ads, Meta, GA4, TikTok, LinkedIn, Shopify, HubSpot and more.
AI that makes and runs your Google and Facebook ads from your own account, with a CRM behind it.
Google & Meta Ads management with 100+ tools. Audit, create, and optimize campaigns.
Run ads on Google, Meta, LinkedIn, TikTok and more from AI. 610+ tools across 14 platforms.
